1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 STEPHEN S. HART, 5 Case No. 22-cv-07674-TLT (PR) Plaintiff, 6 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Vv. 4 3 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff is a prisoner presently housed at the New Castle Correctional Facility in New 11 Castle, Indiana. He initiated this civil rights action against County of Sonoma, County of Lake, 12 || City of Santa Rosa, and State of California seeking the dismissal of unspecified felony convictions

13 || pursuant to California Penal Code § 1203.4. He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis.

v 14 Plaintiff’s claim cannot be brought in a federal civil rights action.

O 15 || empowers the Court to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person 16 || in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court ... on the ground that he is in custody in

17 || violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a). A

18 petition for habeas corpus is a prisoner’s sole judicial remedy when attacking “the validity of the 19 fact or length of ... confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973); Nettles v. 20 || Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016). Here, it appears that plaintiff is challenging the fact 21 of his sentence. Thus, his claim is appropriately raised in a habeas action. 22 Accordingly, plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt Nos. 2 & 9, are 23 || DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff filing a petition for writ of 24 || habeas corpus. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: June 27, 2023

TRI . 28 United States District Judge